Meniscal ramp lesion classification systems: A systematic review.

Meniscal ramp lesion classification systems: A systematic review.

To describe the proposed classification systems for meniscal ramp lesions (RLs) in the literature and evaluate their accuracy and reliability./r/nA systematic search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines utilising PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Level I-IV studies referencing RLs along with either an arthroscopic- or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based classification system used to describe RL subtypes were included./r/nIn total, 21 clinical studies were included. Twenty-seven (79%) of the included studies were published in 2020 or later. There were four main classification systems proposed within the literature (two arthroscopic-, two MRI-based), describing tear patterns, mediolateral extent, associated ligament disruption and stability of the lesion. The first classification was proposed in 2015 by Thaunat et al. and is referenced in 22 (64.7%) of the included studies. The application of the Thaunat et al. criteria to MRI showed variable sensitivity (31.70%-93.8%) and interobserver agreement (k = 0.55-0.80). The Greif et al. modification to the Thaunat et al. system was referenced in 32.4% of the included studies and had a substantial interobserver agreement (k = 0.8). Stability to probing and specific tear location were each used to classify RLs in 28.6% and 23.8% of the included clinical studies, respectively./r/nAlthough there has been a recent increase in the recognition and treatment of meniscal RLs, there is limited consistency in descriptive classifications used for this pathology. Current RL classification systems based on preoperative MRI have variable reliability, and arthroscopic examination remains the gold standard for diagnosis and classification./r/nLevel IV.